1. - In this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are challenging the judgment dated 2.8.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulabpura in criminal appeal No.23/2009 whereby the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and while acquitting the accused petitioner No.1 Bajrang Lal for offence under Sections 379 and 201 I.P.C. and affirmed the remaining part of judgment dated 17.2.2009 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura in criminal regular case No.227/2006.

2. At the commencement of arguments, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that before the appellate Court, the prayer was made by the petitioners that they may be granted benefit of probation but upon arguments made by Addl. Public Prosecutor that prior to filing FIR the petitioners were asked to pay compensation of buffalo who died in the occurrence which took place in the agricultural field of the petitioners but they refused to give compensation for the said buffalo who died due to negligence of the petitioners. Before trial Court also, he has not made any prayer for compromise and to pay any compensation of buffalo who died in occurrence, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of probation as a matter of right. Addl. Public Prosecutor raised objection before the appellate Court that petitioners are not entitled for benefit of probation on the ground that poor complainant Sajjan Singh's buffalo died in the occurrence but no compensation was paid by the appellants, therefore, no benefit of probation should be given to the petitioners.

3. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, learned appellant Court accepted the objections raised by the Addl. Public Prosecutor and rejected the prayer of the petitioners for granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

4. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is true that before registration of FIR same prayer was made for payment of compensation but as per petitioners they did not commit any offence as per their version, therefore, at that time they did not pay the compensation but now they are ready to pay compensation to the complainant and benefit of probation may be granted and order of appellate Court may be modified.

5. Learned Public prosecutor vehemently argued that for the reason which is mentioned in the judgment of the appellate Court the petitioners were rightly refused the benefit of probation. The reasons given by appellate Court for refusing the benefit of probation are sound, therefore, no interference is required in this case.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire record of the case.

7. In this case on 26.6.2006, the complainant Sajjan Singh filed written complaint at Police Station Shambhugarh in which it was alleged that petitioner Bajrang Lal Purohit had laid electric wire around his field and when his buffalo went for grazing she died on account of electricity. Upon this report, case under Section 429, 379 I.P.C. read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Electricity Act was registered against the petitioners and after due trial, learned trial Court vide order dated 17.2.2009 convicted the accused petitioner No.1 Bajrang Lal for committing offence under Section 379 I.P.C. read with Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him for six months imprisonment for each offence and fine of Rs. 500 was imposed against him and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days simple imprisonment for each offence. For offence under Section 429 I.P.C., the accused petitioner No.1 Bajrang Lal was convicted and sentenced for one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Learned trial Court convicted the accused petitioner No.2 Mangal Singh for committing offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced